Monday, November 16, 2015

A same-sex marriage doesn't harm you at all. In fact, being forced to provide a wedding cake custom-made for a same-sex wedding, or take photos of the same-sex couple, doesn't harm you at all.

And yet...

Having a speaker show up on your campus, if you find their views objectionable, is a horrific offense which requires 'trigger warnings', protests, and a safe space, because simply encountering their views is enough to Do Real Harm.

I thought to myself for once I agree with him. But a closer look reveals that crude appears to agree with the notion that same-sex marriage is harmful, but he has problem with political correctness and those who are bothered by "microagressions". The comments seem to indicate that the problem is with liberals who hold contradictory positions, according to crude, because SSM actually is hurtful, but speaking freely isn't. So it looks like I am only half in agreement with him.
My own position is that SSM doesn't hurt anyone, and those who think it does are simply being overly sensitive. It may hurt their delicate feelings that gay people allowed to get married, but they can't show any actual harm of any kind. And by the same token, there is no harm in the kind of speech that many people perceive as "microagression". Often, people are bothered by subtle perceived hints in the language of a speaker that may be interpreted as racism or sexism, or somehow hurtful, when there is actually no such intent in the speech. For example, saying "he" instead of saying "he or she" may be interpreted as a microagression indicating sexism. To those who take offense at this kind of speech, my advice is that they should learn to save their indignation for speech that really is intended to be hurtful, and there still is plenty of that. There are real sexists, racists, homophobes, and others who say things that are hurtful, and you don't have to mine the words for imagined insults. But you can't expect to always be in a "safe space" where nobody is allowed to say completely innocent things that might offend you, and you can't go through life always feeling damaged by these perceived microagressions. Just grow a little thicker skin, and you'll be fine.

There is nothing liberal about limiting free speech in order to protect the overly delicate sensibilities of people whose short lives have been far too sheltered. And please don't try to lump me in with a bunch of immature college students under the label of "liberal". My position is in keeping with long-standing liberal ideals, and theirs is not. I stand with President Obama on this issue, and I salute the University of North Florida and other colleges for eliminating speech codes. Let's all look forward to the demise of militant political correctness.

And I expected crude to agree with me on at least that much. So imagine my surprise when I made a comment to that effect - the first time I have ever tried to comment in his blog, and I was instantly rejected. It seems crude has preemptively banned me. It seems that crude has created a "safe space" of his own, where only people of the correct political or religious persuasion are allowed to speak, and the the denizens there never have to fear hearing something that may challenge them. What a phony. What a hypocrite. In crude's blog, militant political correctness (of the religious right-wing variety) is alive and well. And crude can contradict himself without fear of being challenged by meanies like me.

1 comment:

crude says:"I was going to welcome any Skeptical Zone readers here, but that's made problematic by the fact that A) The Skeptical Zone is a shitty combo-blog, and B) No one reads what that guy has to say anyway. The latter partly explained by the fact that his content includes things like 'The small personal blog of someone who thinks I'm an intellectual ginch didn't post my comment!'"

I respond:I really don't care what you think about me. The important thing is that you lie so freely, and someone should challenge those lies, lest your readers go on thinking that there is some kind of truth to the things you say. I speak on the chance that there are one or two of them who are interested in hearing a different perspective, rather than merely nodding their heads in agreement. I wouldn't expect them (or you) to agree with what I say, but at least they should have the opportunity to hear it.

But I will repeat my assertion again: it is the height of hypocrisy to decry college students for not wanting to listen to ideas that may offend them, while at the same time refusing to listen to ideas that you find offensive. What a piece of work you are.